Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v. Amul-Franchise.in & Ors.

When a brand becomes a household name, it also becomes a magnet for impersonators. For AMUL, India's iconic dairy cooperative, the threat didn't come from a knockoff product on a shelf — it came from a fraudulent domain hiding in plain sight on the internet. This case is a masterclass in how established brands can fight back against digital fraudsters, and what every founder needs to understand about protecting their brand in the online world.

Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd, the entity behind the legendary AMUL brand, found itself battling trademark infringement in an ongoing suit before the Delhi High Court. The defendants in the matter included Amul-Franchise.In and others, who were allegedly exploiting the AMUL name for unauthorized and fraudulent activities. As the litigation progressed, AMUL uncovered new evidence pointing to additional entities that were either facilitating or benefiting from the infringement — including the domain registrar responsible for the offending website and Google LLC. The infringing domain at the center of the dispute was www.educationdindia.com, which was being used in connection with the alleged fraudulent scheme. A specific bank account linked to the infringement also came under scrutiny.

AMUL, as the plaintiff, argued that the fraudulent activities tied to its brand were ongoing and that new parties needed to be brought into the lawsuit to ensure complete and effective enforcement. The plaintiff sought to implead the domain registrar and Google LLC, contending that these entities played a role in enabling or sustaining the infringing operations. AMUL also pushed for immediate interim relief — specifically, the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain www.educationdindia.com and the freezing of the bank account connected to the alleged infringement. The respondents and the newly impleaded parties were on the other side of this fight, with the court weighing whether the plaintiff had presented sufficient grounds to expand the scope of the suit and grant such sweeping interim measures.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of AMUL, granting the plaintiff the relief it sought. The court allowed AMUL to implead the new parties — including the domain registrar and Google LLC — recognizing that bringing these entities into the lawsuit was necessary for comprehensive enforcement against all parties involved in the infringement. Crucially, the court ordered the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain name www.educationdindia.com, effectively cutting off the digital front of the fraudulent operation. In addition, the court directed the freezing of the specific bank account linked to the alleged infringement, ensuring that the financial proceeds of the fraudulent scheme could not be moved or dissipated while the case continued. This decision, dated 15 February 2025, marked a significant win for AMUL in its ongoing battle to protect its trademark.

For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a powerful lesson: trademark protection does not end at filing a lawsuit. When new evidence of infringement surfaces, courts will allow plaintiffs to expand the scope of litigation by impleading necessary parties — from domain registrars to tech platforms to financial institutions. If you discover that fraudsters are using your brand online, act quickly to identify every link in the chain: the domain, the platform enabling it, and the bank account receiving the proceeds. Pursuing interim relief to block domains and freeze accounts can be a decisive move in shutting down infringing operations before more damage is done.